THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

ORDER:

This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2 in FIR No.07/RCT-ACB- WRL/2025 on the file of ACB, Warangal Range Police Station, Warangal District, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) for short ‘PC Act’). 2. Heard Ms. K. Rajitha, learned counsel representing Mr.R. Chandrashekar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Mr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Standing Counsel for ACB appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not demanded any bribe at any time and that she is facing false allegations and even as per the contents of the complaint, no specific allegations are levelled against the petitioner. She further submitted that the call records also do not show that the petitioner has demanded any bribe and the remand case dairy shows that the accused No.1 has asked for bribe without the knowledge of accused No.2 i.e. petitioner herein, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. He, therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB has submitted that there are specific allegations against AO1 and AO2. The petitioner herein is AO2 and there is ample material collected against the petitioner and they have also collected the audio visual recording of the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner and that the demand is suffice to constitute the offence. He further submitted that they have collected ample material to prove the offence against the petitioner and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The contents of the complaint specifically point out that the petitioner herein has demanded Rs.5,000/- for preparation of salary bill and the medical leave period bill of the de facto complainant, which were pending for consideration. The complaint further points out that AO1 and AO2 were reminding the de facto complainant for payment of the bribe amount, after receipt of salary by the de facto complainant. Thus, there are specific allegations against the petitioner. The audio visual recording also is found in the file. The veracity of the statements of the witnesses and the evidentiary value of the said audio visual recording needs to be tested during the course of trial.

7. In view of the above held discussion, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA September 25, 2025 KTL